Do not allow paid political advertising on radio, tv, and internet.

Mass media is arguably the primary influence on the average person's decision-making. It was for this reason that tobacco product advertising was stopped. Political ads have become not much more than attempts to persuade voters to vote NO for something or someone. Most of the content is negative and derogatory, if not outright false. Useful, truthful information is getting more scarce with each election. More muck gets raked every time the campaign season rolls around. Better we should exercise personal initiative to inform ourselves about candidates and issues. Billions of advertising dollars are at stake so the mass media will probably flaunt their powers of influence to stop any such effort, I know the tobacco lobby sure did.

Closing Statement from edward long

123 comments by 23 participants covered the spectrum from status quo to take the vote away from women!
8 people agree with the idea of stopping paid political ads on electronic mass media. 15 people have other ideas. Most believe there is a problem with campaign ethics. Some of the suggestions are: free air time for candidates with fact checking; third party ads ok but not endorsed by candidates; do what other countries do; repeal sufferage; people need information made available to them because they will not get it themselves; a 9-step program was itemized in detail; purge voter ignorance by force-feeding education; all advertising is propaganda; people have already made up their minds so ads don't have much influence; 2 people like the idea but feel it is too difficult to execute (the tobacco ad prohibition carried little weight); one person prefers the status quo; one thinks negative ads are helpful. Thanks to all who shared their wisdom and energy. I will see if TED will allow a debate on this.

Nov 14 2012:
Absolutely yes. Paid Political Advertising should not either be allowed or restricted to a limit. As we all know in this era, Marketing, Advertising works and moreover when Internet Advertising goes viral it works more than million fold. With this, if content being served is negative, then impacts the viewer and people who follow this particular viewer in drastic manner. If this viewer is persuasive in nature, then you can imagine how would he himself build a potential community who might believe in certain negative manner which that advertising wanted to for certain time.

Laws should be made stricter by the authorities looking after institutions like media be it electronic, vocal or print.
In India, paid political news are being served to the viewers with all the prejudices which newsmaker wanted to and then in the race of more viewers media people try and glorify that nonsensical issue and suddenly something negative gets burst out of it. People involved in Journalism need to work with a lot of maturity to ascertain that basic and primary definition of journalism doesn't get butchered. Thanks Edward for this topic

Nov 14 2012:
I included just electronic mass media because of the subtle but powerful effect it can have. I am pleased to see you mention journalists needing a cleansing from all their accumulated biases. Decades ago when I was in school the fudamental ethic of Journalism was Truth Without Bias. Today's journalists and their employers are unashamed to be labeled as Liberal, or Conservative, pro this and con that. I'm afraid the butchering you speak of is accomplished. Thank you for your perspective sir!

Nov 12 2012:
My specific design to tackle the voter education issue is in the forums structure of Citizens Activated. Specifically, the voter education forums, along with the political opinion and voter mobilization forums. And all these serve the original purpose of our forefathers:

Quote: "One of our paramount objectives is to educate the people to exercise their interests in effective ways, for as Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” http://www.newamericanspring.org/pure_form.htm

Nov 12 2012:
Thank you for your thoughts, the quote, and the link. Today's cesspool of paid political advertising is an affront to Jefferson's brilliant philosophy. These insidious ads contribute greatly to the insufficient enlightment of the people themselves.

Nov 11 2012:
I was having this very conversation with a group of friends the other day. My point was that political advertising is in essence DISRESPECTFUL of the American people. There is no inherent virtue in just getting your name out and expecting that the American people should be content with that.

This is why, as an individual who seeks to make a positive difference in my county, I have envisioned a new social initiative for our country called Citizens Activated, the adult arm of my New American Spring populist organizational vision. http://www.newamericanspring.org/first_arm.htm

Nov 12 2012:
I agree sir that lying messages show a certain disdain for the electorate. All we really want is the truth about what effect the candidate or ballot measure will have on our lives. Thank you for your serious concern about this issue.

Nov 11 2012:
I agree but my question is when haven't ads been political. Anheuser-Busch is always making new libation commercials just so you'll buy there product's so they can eliminate competition. Do your research and you'll find that in Supermarkets and convience stores about 60% of liquor section is filled with Anheuser- Busch product's. Or how about those wonderfully designed Superbowl commercials. Or numerous college commercials which institution may not even be accredited. Or the Numerous Charities that steal their donations. Or Church commercials that tell you to watch their program, then later beg for your money claiming they need it to fund their Extremely wealth church. Or to watch seemingly good critically acclaimed movies with Famous Celebrities in them, instead of watching movies that aren't the product of a bias rating system (Which is strangely ok with kids watching Extremely Violent images, but adverse to any sexually content.) I disgress when have you seen a advertisement that wasn't for any type profit but for the enrichment of people.

Nov 11 2012:
No doubt there is a common goal for all advertising. My proposal to stop paid political advertising is based on that common characteristic. The use of public media to coax people to a desired decision is a fundamental component of free trade and capitalism. Far be it from me to attempt to stop all advertising. What I think should be stopped is paid political advertising for all the reasons cited throughout this post. I believe sufficient evidence exists in the public record to show that unscrupulous, incompetent people get elected to office via the effective use of paid political ads. The same applies to ballot measures. The decision making processs in matters of public concern should be protected, as far as reasonably possible, from deceptive, manipulative, false influences. Stop paid political advertising. Long live advertising! Thank you for your thoughts!

Nov 12 2012:
I hope that you realize that most politicians campaign's are funded by these corporations, and have been influnenced to carry there interest's. One is the so called grassroots campaign to stop the forming of unions. Among other unscruplous deeds which I'm actually trying to verify the facts of.

Nov 12 2012:
Ok found something interesting the federal reserve. It's not funded or regulated by any government factions nor is it a public institution but a privately who top branch includes the president's of all big banks.
This seems so louche 1 I can not find out about the staff who makes the policies.
2 The government faction made to regulate and audit called (Government Accountability Office) has very limited jursdication the Federal Bank and Reserve over their actions

1.transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
2.deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
3.transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
4.a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[41][42]

Comment deleted

Nov 10 2012:
You speak truth sir. But the problem is that many do, and likely always will, rely on mass electronic media for their information. These folks are deceived into voting a certain way and if enough of them do so then the misrepresented candidate gets elected or the measure becomes law. That should stop. Freedom of speech is important but the first amendment does not guarantee the right to lie, slander, and misrepresent for personal gain. To outlaw such conduct would in no way diminish the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Thank you.

Comment deleted

Nov 11 2012:
It's ok, Mr. Trainor, I'm not disappointed. If I believed Twinkie eating people on welfare were costing me lots of money I would favor stopping them from eating so many delicious "cream" filled sponge cakes. I, being of sound mind, do not believe there is a pending Twinkies conspiracy by folks on welfare. Your second paragraph ignores the very essense of my argument: the persuasive power of these ads is being used to get votes where votes should not be gotten. Your third paragraph implies that if I have not introduced legislation on this matter that I am somehow being fraudulent, or insincere. Well, I have not authored legislation or formed any groups. All I have done is post an idea on the premier website where (mostly) valuable, intelligent, serious critical analysis can be gotten for free! Paragraph number four seems to be an example of syntax gone wrong. Can you interpret it for me please? I find nothing requiring a response in your fifth and final (I hope) paragraph.

Comment deleted

Nov 11 2012:
Ok he's not trying to ban information on the candidates. He believe's in banning there extremely one-sided advertisements or simply put propaganda. Every growing political candidate has a website or web page that state's their platform, plans, and associate's. All you would have to is research is the plan's details and decide whether you think it's effective or not. The Platform is unimportant because it's made just to make the candidate look pretty.

Comment deleted

Nov 11 2012:
I'm sad to say but I don't watch Tv either, but because I use YouTube and hulu that I still am forcible blasted with ads. They are shorter ads and are played in smaller quantities than any TV ads. but persistently annoying ads just the same.

Comment deleted

Nov 10 2012:
Being influenced is inevitable. It is part of the realities of living in a community. I'm not a big fan of political ads because the candidates are marketed in a way similar to goods and service; but for political ads they are even worse because they present a particular candidate as the 'saint' 'great guy without any fault' 'patriot' 'caring' .....and all the rosy pictures that are meant to express the fact that our guy is great while the other guy is bad! (Opposition parties actually make ads that are meant to paint the other guy as BAD)
I think politicians should be on TV, Radio and the Internet; not advertised as products but in debates, interviews and issue-based campaigns.
All the white-washing, glamorizing and the PR stuff are too fake. And once a house is built on lies, it is most likely to be sustained by it.

Nov 10 2012:
Politicians absolutely should be on mass electronic media. If fact, they should be obligated to do so as part of the process. What I think should stop is the paid political ads where only one side is presented and that usually in a biased, dishonest way. That should stop! Thanks!

Nov 8 2012:
If we want to revise the election procedures then lets go all the way. Lets make sensable rules that would apply to all parties. Without a lot of thought and off the top of my head:

1. Election war chests cannot exceed 1 million for ads, 1 million for transportation, 1 million for posters, etc. for a total of four million in a four year period. (or any reasonable amount agreed upon)

2. TV ads will be limited to one per night per candidate from the hours of 8 - 10 PM until budget for ads are exhausted.

3. Mail and lawn signs may be set out or mailed 30 days prior to the election and be removed within 10 workdays after the election.

4. Robo calls are not allowed at any time. A number to call for further info will be provided on the poster, mailout, or ad.

5. Door to door soliciting is not allowed.

6. Townhall meetings are allowed but must be sponsored by a volunteer.

7. Three debates will be sponsored by three networks decided by a hat draw. No audiences. All questions will be drawn at random; subjects will be foriegn affairs, US economic position, domistic issues, and two undisclosed subjects. Each speaker (from all parties) will be given three minutes to speak on each question and the microphone will go dead at the end of the three minutes and cameras will return to the debate monitor. Speakers will not have the benefit of hearing the other speakers and the question will be given to them with one minute to prepare their thoughts.

8. Use of public transport at the expense of taxpayers will not be used during campaigning. (Air Force One)

9. The incumbent will step down from office for 30 days prior to the election to campaign. The VP will act on normal duties ... emergencies are a exception. The incumbent will not be on the federal payroll during this time.

At the end of the debate there will be a fact check and the false or misleading details will be identified. No recap .. if he cannot make his point to bad. This is fun. Bob.

Nov 8 2012:
Not bad for an extempoaneous effort sir! I would really like to see the electronic ads go away. I think your #1 would pretty much achieve that because you can't buy much air time for a measly $1M. Also, you need a stiffer penalty for debaters who say something not factual. Otherwise they will knowingly state a falsehood just to inflict the damage and then accept a slap on the hand. #9 sounds dangerous depending on who is the VP. Some of your measures seem to be remedies for bothersome solicitors which I agree with, but my real concern is to stop the misleading of voters. Thanks!

Nov 8 2012:
Not a bad idea but I wrestle with the 1st amendment implications.

McCain Feingold has just created a more complex system that does not reform anything.

The reasoning is to create more responsible voters?

To that end maybe go back to you had to have skin in the game to vote, Ann Coulter says to end women's suffrage, my idea would be that you have to take a test to demonstrate a basic understanding of politics and economics.

Nov 8 2012:
Well, the existence of Ann Coulter certainly IS one reason to end women's suffrage but on that test, you can't have economics questions because it's not a science and not even economists agree with each other on many topics: ask 100 economists the same question and you get 100 different answers, it's a modern form of fortune-telling. Why not ask aspiring voters to point out 3 countries on a globe, that'll clean up the American electorate.

Nov 8 2012:
Yipes! You just pegged the Radical Meter! A prerequisite test for voters? Forget about it! Diversity won't allow it. Take the vote away from females? I'm glad I didn't say that sir!
The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to broadcast slander and untruth, but it is too expensive to litigate at that level so nobody sues anybody even though the ads are lies and gross distortions meant to mislead. I think we're OK on the 1st Amendment issue.
Yes, the reasoning behind my idea is to stop people from voting according to false or misleading information. Remember, the number of smokers, especially new smokers, decreased when the ads were banned. Does anyone remember when Lawyers were not allowed to advertise on TV and radio? Their business boomed when that changed. Agreed?

I'm merely relaying what Ann Coulter said which is pertinent to this question.

Agreed that smoking has gone down and ambulance chasers have gone up. Do you have any statistics about either? It seems to me the culture had more to do with the smokers and perhaps lawyers as with the entitlement culture.

Nov 8 2012:
My diversity remark goes to language difficulties (ebonics, etc.). The questions on a test may be relevant and known to a white,anglo-saxon protestant, but foreign to an inner city Hindu citizen.
I don't question the relevance of Ms. Coulter's observation. I just see it as a conversation stopper.
I do not have data on the the examples. I do however "know" the effects are a matter of record as I stated them. Feel free to disregard those for lack of proof.
It is time to do something radical. We do not disagree Pat. Peace.

Nov 8 2012:
One point the world has settled into English as the standard language as the dollar is the currency of choice. Why do we have to screw around with the "language difficulty at all? Hell if China can learn English why not the voters?

Nov 14 2012:
Sometimes the best insight comes near the finish line. Still an hour remaining for some TEDster to illuminate the issue with glowing truth and clarity. I already learned one thing though, and that is that many people take the first amendment seriously. Stay tuned Pat and thanks for your contributions.

Nov 13 2012:
We, the entire population of the US, have been indoctrinated to believe that our politicians, those we "elect" to office, are LIARS and THIEVES, and that we should just accept that as the way things are........

and until recently, they have politely kept that reality in the background so we can continue to live under the false assumption that they are otherwise qualified and decent human beings with our best interests at heart. Now they are more bold and less "polite" about obscuring these aspects of our political system and your.......

surprised?......

seriously.....you expect the rubber manufacturers to "re-invent" the wheel........

it is not the system that is flawed, it is the processes that support the system that need to change

Nov 13 2012:
There is nothing intuitive about your view of the problem. So much more fact-finding is called for. I think stopping paid political ads (PPA's) would be justified simply on the basis of opinion and intuition. PPA's broadcast information which may or may not be true. Since evaluating the veracity of a PPA would take time and money prior to its broadcast it cannot be verified because of the small amount of time between primarys and elections. No problem. . . let's just stop PPA's. Their absence would have a more positive effect, on the very process you mention, than their presence does. Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Roche.

Nov 13 2012:
Everything comes from something, is born of a history and that history must be examined before the current status of anything can be examined for potential adjustments to any benefit...

The system is broken from the inside......simply ending PPAs, a slippery slope of censoring free speech btw, will not miraculously fix the problems inferred by this discussion and may potentially create even greater issues down the road.... though I don't disagree something must be done to pull money out of the processes used to elect our leadership......

You've alluded to it here, an information pipeline, accessible to everyone, facts, voting records, employment histories, qualifications, plain english explanations of proposals and bills, ect. paid for by media as the cost of doing business in our country, checked for accuracy, and so on.....

But, this is only part of a much larger and complex problem that needs to be addressed before we can have and expect accountability within our broken democratic system....

Corporations are People, effectively negating "One person, One Vote"
Vast amounts of money contributed by "ghost" entities
No Accountability for Lying to the public in or out of office
Less than half the electorate actually voting
Rampant ignorance among the voting populace of the processes of government
PACs, Lobbyists, the list goes on and on....

An argument against the "Mass Media" as the Primary Influence on our decision-making during elections falls short...
just sayin

Nov 12 2012:
I hate commercialism anyway so I haven't thought that much about keeping political ads out but there should at least be a consequence for lying. Romney has set a precedent that needs to be addressed. Adults running for high office should not need a law or threat to keep them to tell the truth and making assertions that can be backed up with evidence, but Romney's bald-faced lied by the bushel basket make the whole process a sham and America an embarrassment in the eyes of the world. We should not need a Constitutional amendment to remove a whole administration from office for getting a war wrong, but Bush-Cheney has made that necessary as well--there is a conflict of interest in ending the war if you aren't willing to admit the truth. These are times where apparently you DO have to put signs on walls to tell people not to hit their heads against them.

Nov 12 2012:
Whether the Republicans are the only ones who lie or not is beyond the scope of this post. What you have astutely pointed-out sir is that the lying should stop no matter which side of aisle it comes from. Stop paid political advertising on electronic mass media! Thank you!

Nov 13 2012:
Mr. James, having four Americans murdered in Libya while the whole world watches is an embarrassment in the eyes of the world as well. Both administrations have blood in their hands but the masses are too ignorant to see it. The media has saturated their minds with ignorance. Like sheep being guided in their thoughts.

Nov 13 2012:
Why address that to me. Isn't this about political ads? Only on right wing media has the tragedy in Libya been made into theater of sensationalism. I do not trust them or there motives. You should probably check your information sources for bias unless you already know you're a right wing dupe. I didn't see anything during the political ad season that President Obama approved that was a lie. And only one or two things done by PACs used actors and maybe fudged a date of two. Romney had Jeep moving to China in the last week of the election and wouldn't stop saying it even after Chrysler complained about the lie. This type of LYING went on even in the primaries. Heck, the man was caught lying on his taxes to get into the Governor's Mansion in Massachusetts. Fool me once, twice---how many times do you need to be lied to before it's YOUR SHAME?

Nov 14 2012:
Mr. McGuiness, will you please identify any right wing bias in these three questions about Benghazi?
1) The White House denied pleas for added security prior to the attack. Why?
2) When did the White House learn of the attack and was appropriate action taken immediately?
3) From where did the "cover story" about an American-made anti-Muslim film come?
I know pro-Obama folks will say it's all unimportant, and anti-Obama folks will say it's a premeditated act of treason and acts of impeachment should be drawn-up immediately. But for now how about serious, factual answers to these three fact-based questions? Thank you!

Comment deleted

Nov 12 2012:
I believe the 47% figure heard recently. That number of voters are expected to vote a straight party line. That leaves 6% who are the real target of the tsunami of often inaccurate, if not outright false, ads meant to do what all ads are meant to do. That demographic does not affect the need to institute the idea I am proposing. Thank you!

Nov 12 2012:
The 47% figure was conjecture on a different topic (which has been shown to be false). The data I've seen on straight-ticket votes ranges from 38.5% in OK to 45.5% in IN, and I've yet to find anything from the 35 states that don't promote straight-ticket voting.

Nov 12 2012:
You are correct sir. The final numbers are not in but I expect them to illustrate the stark polarization of the American electorate. This is about the popular vote, not Electoral votes. How does this bear on the posted idea?

Nov 12 2012:
Apologies, I meant those were the percentages of voters that went straight-ticket in those states. The idea was that those voting straight-ticket would coincide with those who made up their minds before the advertisement campaigns began. On the other hand, only about a quarter of registered voters are independent (according to http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004483), so perhaps my assumption was incorrect.

I would have to agree to Tucker's observation of the effects of confirmation bias in the already-decided voters though.

Nov 12 2012:
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't see that restricting such advertising would be the correct course of action. Primarily, the outlets that would provide their services to a politician pro-bono are precisely the ones which are biased toward that politician, while the outlets that are more neutral might not be able to afford the associated loss in revenue. Secondarily I would note that the negative ads seem to work better (in terms of voter turnout and issue knowledge, according to http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/caveman-politics/201210/why-are-negative-ads-positive-voters), in spite of their attempts to manipulate the public.

Nov 12 2012:
I do not disagree with your observations but I would add that the heart of the problem is UNTRUTH. I really don't care who says what in a campaign so long as what they say is true. As stated elsewhere in this coversation, we are not talking about positive versus negative ads, but about true versus false ads. To me a true negative ad is of much more value than a false positive ad. I am proposing stopping ALL PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISING because I don't think we could restrict only false ads, so stop them all. Thank you.

Nov 12 2012:
I do not know how we can stop media owners from using their resources to get their favorites elected or passed by whatever means necessary without infringing upon their Constitutional rights. So I think we must live with those non-revenue producing ads from the media moguls. Follow the money, Mr. Hawk, follow the money!

Nov 11 2012:
It is really a great concern for the society and for a nation to grow, unless we propose a strong law in media. Because, in the democratic countries,most of the reforms and ideas are initiated by the government. So, it is important to choose a right leader,belonging to a party, which can stand for the people of the nation. But most of the politicians are concerned with VOTE-BANKING.Their self-interest is bigger than the growth of their country. Here comes the role of mass media that includes Ads too.

If i analyse,there are 3 categories of people inclined to politics.
1. Likely Voters
2. Undecided Voters
3. Nothing to do with ..

The major concern lies to undecided voters,because they do not know whom to support. And here Politicians or political parties make the wrong use of media by provoking such that they will deal with their vote banking efficiently. Now we have reached to a point where it requires an utmost importance to challenge this situation.

- A stricter rule has to be governed for media, if it is proved that the particular media is driven by political funds.
- The editors have to take responsibility to check the credibility of their team and the unbias of any political parties.

Freedom of speech does not mean that people or mass media interprets something that favors to a particular group.The mass media should examine the facts, not claims.
There are few countries such as India, where most of the funds to media come from donation of political parties. Even if it is not election time, the way they publish their everyday contents, is bias or favourable to a political group. It is very easy to pursuade the uneducated people or in developed world, undecided voters.

And everyone knows the consequence of selecting wrong people in relevant places. It certainly becomes disaster. Hence, i say a stricter reform or rule should be implemented to restrict paid political advertising that promotes negative and derogatory content.

Nov 11 2012:
I agree with ed to kill the campaign ads. One because I worked on the Obama campaign and even I got sick of seeing in every form of media, and I don't even watch TV. Second though I do believe there is a extreme need for unbiased fact checking media. I don't believe that by just delivering the facts will that change the influence of Politicians because with the mass media outputs they can very easily bend the truth in there favor. Example Micheal Jackson, OJ, R Kelly, or that case where the mother allegedly murdered her child, or Reverend Jesse Jackson who had a child out of wedlock and threaten's Obama sayin "I want to cut the nig***s balls off" and is still a popular political figure.

Nov 8 2012:
Yes, mass-media is the basis of most people's decision-making process, at leas when it comes to the elections, but to ban political ads? I don't think this is going to work. In the UK, politicians can't really advertise themselves on public TV. The result? Turnouts approaching 40% with a downward trend, because nobody can't be bothered to look the policies up unless somebody shouts them from their TV screen.
Attack ads don't necessarily mean the rhetoric is vile and hateful. It is an element of adversarial politics, and because both sides want to top each other and comment on each other's bad ideas, effectively MORE information is getting through, at the same time encouraging public debate.

Nov 8 2012:
Thank you for your insight. My idea is to change the present reality of people voting based on lies they have been told via, if not by, the media. Do people really not have time to learn which candidate or measure they support or oppose? What if the message being shouted from the TV screen is a lie? Shouldn't we consider fixing that?

Nov 9 2012:
I would say that people who do not take the time to inform themselves should not vote. It would be great if people had to fill out a basic questionnaire in order to vote. If you pass go right ahead and vote. I get sick every time a television show ask people on the street basic questions, and they can not answer them. I once watched a teacher who was unable to answer basic history questions. It would be great if fact checking were mandatory, and networks were fined for every falsehood they utter. I do not think this would hinder anybody's freedom of speech anymore than not being able to scream fire in a movie theater does. I think Orson Welles proved that freedom of speech should be used responsibly. That being said, many people listen to networks that I think lie a lot. Remember Dan Rather's fake documents. I am sure plenty of people still watch CBS News. As long as the owners think that the truth is not important to us then they sell us scandals. Compare annual sales of the National Inquire to news magazines sometime. People making uninformed decisions are dangerous not to just themselves, but to all of us. Personally I think that the only reason some people vote for a candidate is because that politician promised to get them something for nothing. Basically buying their vote. If this did not effect me then I would say it was a personal matter, but it does. There are schools in Mexico that teach that Thomas Alva Edison was Mexican, simply because his middle name sounds Hispanic. Lies are very hard to erase once they are ingrained. How many dictatorships control their people with fear and lies? Then you have to consider the "shouters". Those would be the people who you try to have an intellectual exchange with, but can not defend their beliefs. They believe that the louder ruder person wins.
I would mix both of your opinions together. I do not mind seeing a fight just as long as I am being presented with the whole truth. Halve truths are just as good as lies to me

Nov 9 2012:
I guess the issue here is truth. As you say there is nothing wrong with opposing candidates slugging it out so long as they don't resort to lies and deceit. Unfortunately time has proven that there is trend in paid political advertising on mass media toward slander, libel, innuendo, and outright lying. Such conduct is adopted because it produces results. If a person hears something enough times they will tend to believe it and vote accordingly. If what they hear is truth, no harm, no foul. But if what they hear is not true there is a serious problem. Many here say we are not our brother's keeper and if people are too stupid to see through the lies then that is their problem. I disagree. It is my problem when a candidate or a ballot measure passes or fails based on the power of untrue advertising. It should stop. Thanks for your thoughtful response to the question!

Nov 9 2012:
Such test would undermine the principle of universal suffrage, which is one of the things we can safely say democracy got right. Yes, the media in the USA are heavily biased, some towards the crazies (Fox), and some towards the lefties (NBC? Not sure). Yes, they tend to oversimplify. Outright lies? Not so much. They are the news, after all.
I totally agree to the statement that the public is not presented with the whole truth by the news. That's what attack ads are for -- to supply the uglier part of truth about the other candidate.
Speaking of slander and painting the wrong picture, I think the first ever presidential campaigns in the US featured them rather prominently. So in a way, progress was made since that time.

Nov 10 2012:
RE: "Such test . . . " Absolutely right sir! If the truth is being presented, no matter how ugly, then I say bravo. What I think should stop is the lying. If you had seen our barrage of paid political ads here the wild west of Arizona you would not characterize the use of outright lies as "not so much". Also, I am not concerned about the bias of network owners. Each of us can choose our network but we cannot escape the fusilade of deceitful, misleading paid political ads. They should be stopped.

Nov 8 2012:
don't you think that tv channels, internet pages and radio stations have owners? why don't you let them decide what content they put on their own media?

how about i claim that quality wine is good culturally, so i ban showing cheap wines in media? you people in the US pretty much seem to have forgotten things like freedom of speech and such minor issues. constitution anyone?

Nov 8 2012:
almost? i certainly believe that all of them have. if they want to appear as a trustworthy source of information, they can of course reject it, but every firm has its own strategy and image. viewers decide what they watch.